~ Perspective from Vancouver

How to do a press release from a Highways Department

Building a new (fill in project here) is critical for moving people, emergency vehicles and goods in this area. Once constructed, the new interchange will help alleviate congestion and get traffic moving through this key corridor.

The Steveston Hwy interchange is proposed to have three levels, and a transit station in the middle. There is a scale model of this one, and the Hwy 17 interchange, in the project office located in Richmond, near the site of the future interchange.

Right. Except three times longer. And one third higher. And wider. And adapted to an inlet instead of a river. Oh, and let’s not forget the disasters. No disasters from large ships hitting the piers, sinking ships, killing people aboard and on the roadway, and leaving drivers stranded for years without a functioning crossing. Following the collision and reconstruction, the bridge is now closed to traffic when vessels pass underneath it.

No, I think that with the Lions Gate the piers are built at the edges of the narrows, not all the way across. If a large ship were to run into one, it would ground before taking out the pier. Unless it was a small boat, in which case it would be unlikely to take out the pier.

Well, if we believe proponents of a wider Massey Tunnel replacement bridge, wider bridges with more lanes won’t bring any more traffic to the terminus point. All those additional vehicles will take some other exit, leaving traffic free flowing,

Widening this and the other bridge is done to relieve bottlenecks of polluting congestion, that also hinders essential emergency vehicles too. Increases in the number of vehicles crossing the bridge is a fantasy created by shortsighted thinkers that resist any change.

Ask yourself this; is Vancouver now vastly more congested, since the building of the new Port Mann Bridge? No.

Does Vancouver become vastly more congested around 10am, once the rush hour is over at the chronically congested Massy Tunnel? No.

Every morning there is congestion southbound on the 99 leading to delta and the Tsawwassen ferry terminal. A 20 minute delay is not uncommon. The suggestion Jeff is trying to make is that if the tunnel were replaced by a bridge with 2.5 times more capacity then all that extra capacity will suddenly materialize and congest every exit. ie: He thinks the ferries will all be 2.5 times fuller.

Eric, I’d call it delusion rather than satire. Why build something with 2.5 times more capacity if the plan isn’t to maximize it? The BC Liberals want to see these bridges full and when they are they’ll build more. That’s all they know. They missed the part about Galileo and a finite planet.
Nothing grows forever except the delusion that it can.

I marvel at the twisted logic that making more road space will relieve congestion forever. All it does in study after study of real world cases is make more room for more congestion. Your problem just gets worse.

The antithesis of this congestion relief myth can be found in downtown, which doubled in population within a 20-year period while at the same time downtown traffic was reduced by about 15%. High density living may not be everyone’s cuppa, but it surely makes for healthier communities where walking, biking and transit can outcompete cars. Medium density living also has easily measureable major benefits over sprawling subdivisions where everyone is a slave to their vehicles.

Another myth about “congestion relief” mega road projects is that the problem with pollution goes away as long as vehicles move at speed. That is ridiculous. Chronic asthma rates in children from oxides of nitrogen and sulfur and deaths in the population of seniors inhaling ozone have always been far higher nearer major arterials and highways regardless of the speed. The presence of roads and the amount of traffic, not the speed of the traffic, is the primary trigger of major health issues that have burdened the healthcare system for generations. That is even before the extraordinary rate of death and injury our society accepts from car accidents, and the higher rates of heart disease and diabetes in suburban populations where exercise consists of stepping on the gas.

One of the best arguments against Massey and other ill-informed freeway projects stems from their ultimate impact on the health of citizens. Everything else is BC government propaganda.

Eric, I don’t think you are considering bridge capacity and traffic volume correctly in terms of traffic congestion. Perhaps this is all a communications failing.

When you claim that all the lanes on a new bridge won’t be filled, that is true, on an annual basis. Until induced demand causes total volumes to rise (subject to the downward pressure of any tolling) annual traffic will likely be similar.

But the concern about all this traffic (however much “all” is) isn’t about an annual amount, it is about the peak period volumes. What used to get spread out by the regulating influence of the tunnel will now arrive all at once. That is the volume we are talking about that you are ignoring. Having 10 lanes instead of 4 can result in 2.5 times the short term, ie hourly, volume, and your statements that this won’t impact local roads doesn’t consider this.

The 2.5 times growth doesn’t have to ‘materialize’ as it is already lined up waiting to use the current tunnel.

It is like the expression drinking from a fire hose. That line refers to much more flowing than one can handle all at once. Same for peak period traffic. The current tunnel congestion is a regulator. Take out the regulator, and another point will act as a regulator. In this case, and considering northbound, likely the Oak St Bridge, and every exit between the new bridge and Oak St.

Some people see the old tunnel as a bottleneck, others see it as a regulator. Although, no mention of this useless ‘regulator’ with massive congestion southbound every morning. Regulating people from getting to the BC Ferries terminal in good time, etc., etc. Regulating US visitors returning home comfortably, etc. Regulating the garbage arriving at the city dump.

I think this congestion debate hasn’t been voiced and understood enough. Gordon was quite candid with NEWS1130, “He points towards the congestion problems at the Lions Gate, “from our point of view it is somewhat of a solution. You have got to actually limit the amount of traffic that can pour into a place like downtown Vancouver or Lonsdale, there is an upper limit on the traffic.””

Eric, you’ve missed the point entirely, deliberately or otherwise. There wasn’t a value applied to the regulator analogy in my comment, good or bad, just the point that it exists. If you take it out, you move the bottleneck. You even quoted a source promising that. Traffic is a system, and the regulator serves a function, whether you value it positively or negatively.

You continue to suggest that removing this particular regulator solves all the problems. Those people you refer to aren’t getting home any faster, in many cases. They are just going to be stuck in a different location. And getting us to that new steady state will cost, what, about $5B?

You have to get over the idea that the goal is to move cars. It is to move people. Some of them will continue to be in cars, sure, but not all of them. And the more of them you incent out of SOVs, with transit, etc, the more room there is left for those who need to or want to use SOVs. Not to mention the commercial vehicles.

If you really wanted to improve commercial traffic, you would be arguing for a new truck crossing, perhaps 4 lanes. Keep the tunnel for the next few decades, with the seismic upgrade that was originally proposed. Then, as traffic declines over the coming decades, decommission the tunnel. In the meantime, you will have built resiliency into the system, and when we consider the disaster that was the Tasman bridge (thanks for that) resiliency starts to look more and more important. Just last night I crossed the Port Mann, eastbound, in rush hour. Wasn’t bad, but then we got to use the HOV lane to 200th. Westbound over the bridge was stopped, just a few vehicles trickling through. We saw the crash aftermath, and rescue vehicles still on scene. Single choke point. Bad idea.